Consider if you will the situation now – the women stay bundled up and the men still riot in the streets, kill dhimmi dogs, protest over politcal cartoons, treat their women like crap, suicide bomb…

Now if the women showed some hair, some fore arm, or some ankle…. Imagine how uncivilized these men would become!

I would never dream of encouraging anything that might change that level of civility they are showing now!

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on Monday, July 21st, 2008 at 7:14 am and is filed under Catholic. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

It seems though it is o.k for satan to entice some of Christianity’s followers, but I hope those followers, now seeing the light, understand the deep pit they dig for themselves when they try to attack the religion of about 2 billion people.

And according to the Vatican themselves, Islam is the largest religion in the world, Catholicism coming in second.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you re read your post, you probably would agree Pope John Paul would never sanction what you wrote.

I’m not a fan of Islam, either, but I think Theephoenix has a point here in terms of intolerance. By posting things like this you only add to misconceptions and prejudice. And how can you decry the “shrouding of women” when many of your own tradition insist that a woman “shroud” herself at mass?

I’m not a fan of Islam, either, but I think Theephoenix has a point here in terms of intolerance.

I rather suspected you would agree with TP.

By posting things like this you only add to misconceptions and prejudice.

What misconception am I presenting here exactly?

And how can you decry the “shrouding of women” when many of your own tradition insist that a woman “shroud” herself at mass?

Are you kidding me? For the record I am not a mantilla-man myself, but if you think a lace mantilla/chapel veil like a doylee (called for by some trad Catholic under penalty of stoning, is it?) and the burkha or hijab are the same thing… Well you are a semantic fight looking for a place to happen. Give me a break.

Interesting that so many misunderstanders of Islam among the clerical class seem to think otherwise. How do they keep getting wrong?

I really shouldn’t have to be mentioning this because I’m assuming i’m having a discussion with someone who knows all the facts.

What do they sat about “When you assume?” If I misunderstand, explain it better. Why do so many regimes in the Islamic world – when their version of it comes to power – demand it (a la Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afganistan?)

The small headscarf is all that’s required, By Islam and Christianity.

Now I must be a misunderstander of Christianity also. Where is a small headscarf required for Christian women?

To say it oppresses women, is to say Christianity oppresses women, that’s the point he was trying to make.

Who was trying to make?

~~~~~~~~~~~

As for prejudice being put forward, here it is, plain and simple, the points Pope John Paul II would never say against Islam:

Wait… before getting started, when did this become about what Ven. Pope John Paul would have or did say? When did he enter the fray of this combox?

2) Routinely murder the innocent (Remember the crusades or Hitler?)

Methinks the combox commentator doth protest too much. That wasn’t the point of the post, but interesting you should think it was or could be. Why or why is it the case that we are coming to associate in the west Islam with the killing of innocent people? Perhaps because it happens daily by folks who must be misunderstanders of Islam.

3) Is responsible for honor killings? (Christianity is too till this very day, but it was most prevalent in the 17th and 18th centuries)

Your first sentence is an incomplete thought. That being said, can you show us some modern examples of Catholic honor killing that and then demonstrate the correlation of their prevelence in Christian countries (and the legal tolerance of them therein) to what we see in Islamic honor killing and Islamic countires)

4) Has Jihad (This just means struggles to be overcome, obviously i’m not discoursing with a person well versed in Islam)

Very obviously you are dealing with someone who is not well-versed in your personal understanding of Islam. I am dealing too routinely with news of the vast, vast misunderstanders of Islam I guess.

5) Denies the Divinity of christ (The majority of the world is guilty of this… what’s your point, we’re not all christian, but that doesn’t mean you can’t be tolerant?)

Where did I make that point? Methinks this might be a form response…

Treat thy neighbor as thyself.

You do the same.

Where is the word christian in there?

In where? Where is it supposed to be?

Jesus would never sanction these comments, John Paul II would never sanction these comments, and the followers of such men should equally never sanction such hateful comments.

Where in the hell did you come from that you feel qualified to pontificate on what Jesus or John Paul II would say or sanction?

This is hate, ignorance, and arrogance at it’s peak.

I know better than to presume you were talking about top shia cleric in Iran who was responsible for the comments that precipitated this post… If you were talking about his hateful, ignorant and arrogant comments, I would be inclined of course to agree.

There’s no headscarf/hat requirement for Catholic women, thought my guess is that the mantilla chicks are more conservative than most.

Somali chicks are all shrouded up and claim that it’s religion-based shrouding. They sue when employers want them to wear clothing that isn’t loose and flowy, on account of safety. Don’t the Taliban force women to shroud up?

St. John Paul is about truth, not obfuscation and lying to infidels.

The First Crusade took place in order to free Eastern Christians from Muslim rule.

11:5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.

1. the *clerics* never force the burkha… it was the taliban in afghanistan that the U.S. PUT there that enforced it. before the taliban came… there were people that had the burkha on but it was culture, most people just had the basic coverings on. but that changed after the taliban.

2. look at the verses i posted above. aka women must shave head if she does not cover her head.

3. muslims believe killing one person is like killing the whole world. it is a sin to kill. the only way out of it is self-defense ( as is in Judaism and Christianity). so those who kill innocents arent muslims. i can find millions of people in america that dont even follow christianity/judaism …. they might commit murder, adultery, rape, etc… but you cant base a whole religion on those kind of people.

the first crusades were to get the holy lands back and kill people. it was a lie… the corrupted church told everyone that they would go to heaven if they killed muslims. just like how some muslims are being told the same thing today.

Jihad – to struggle within oneself…

it basically means to fight your inner desires to become a better person.
the other meaning of jihad is holy war.. but it can only be declared by a messenger of god such as a prophet. No one in present day can declare this.

“the first crusades were to get the holy lands back and kill people. it was a lie… the corrupted church told everyone that they would go to heaven if they killed muslims. just like how some muslims are being told the same thing today.” [sic]

Either you are ignorant of history or you are apathetic, either way it is slanderous and sinful to write what you wrote.

If you look at the whole of the Mediterranean world during the reign of Constantine the Great:
You will see that the Empire consisted of lands that are now under the yoke of Islam.

Look at the Empire under Justinian:

Notice that Justinian died in 565, less than 70 years before the rise of Islam.

100 years after the death of Justinian, his Eastern and Southern territories were under the control of the Caliph. And by the 700s Islam had encroached all the way into France.

Tell me, who was invading force? Who was fighting a defensive battle? When you talk about the Crusades it wasn’t as if Reynald de Chatillon lead a force to conquer Mecca and deface the Kaaba. There is no Church or Shrine in Mecca that has things written against Islam as the Dome of the Rock has in it:

“O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ – Cease! (it is) better for you! – God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. … Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning!”

“Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denieth the Father, and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also.”- 1 John 2:22-23

Sunfromthewest, Sola Scriptura is a Protestant thing and the King James Bible is Church of England. As a Catholic, that which binds me is 1983 Code of Canon Law, which is silent on women covering their heads. Why? Because that’s a tradition which may or may not apply in a given locale.

BTW, my ancestral realm is that in which the Turks were turned back during the battle of Sisek. They left their coffee.

1. the *clerics* never force the burkha… it was the taliban in afghanistan that the U.S. PUT there that enforced it. before the taliban came… there were people that had the burkha on but it was culture, most people just had the basic coverings on. but that changed after the taliban.

Where on earth did these Taliban misunderstanders of Islam come up with this notion that is near identical to Saudi Arabia and Iran’s dress code for the lady folk? What is the cultural commonality that makes them so misunderstand this?

2. look at the verses i posted above. aka women must shave head if she does not cover her head.

And now point to where Christian theocrats are imposing your interpretation? Where are women being stoned or beheaded? Where in the Christian world is the analagous situation you claim there is? A few examples please.

3. muslims believe killing one person is like killing the whole world. it is a sin to kill. the only way out of it is self-defense ( as is in Judaism and Christianity). so those who kill innocents arent muslims. i can find millions of people in america that dont even follow christianity/judaism …. they might commit murder, adultery, rape, etc… but you cant base a whole religion on those kind of people.

Wait, you get to “drop” all killers as “not REAL Muslims” because you claim Islam doesn’t call for the death of apostates? (Imagine the surprise and chagrin that this would bring to any number of dedicated Islamists who take seriously the hadith of the Mohammed: “Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.”?

the first crusades were to get the holy lands back and kill people. it was a lie… the corrupted church told everyone that they would go to heaven if they killed muslims. just like how some muslims are being told the same thing today.

Can you offer some citations for this assertion?
Can you help us understand how the Holy Land came to be controled by the Caliph?
Can you help us understand a little more about the treatment of the dhimmi in the Holy Land?

Jihad – to struggle within oneself…

Why do so many jihadis seem to misunderstand this?

it basically means to fight your inner desires to become a better person. the other meaning of jihad is holy war.. but it can only be declared by a messenger of god such as a prophet. No one in present day can declare this.

Why don’t more people understand this? Why is there such a disconnect?

Jihad is a personal struggle…5% maybe,,,here is the other 95%…the real jihad :

A footnote to Quaran attributed to Imam Bukhari…

“Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honor is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite.”

Where in that splendid definition of jihad does it mention ‘personal struggle?

jihad has 2 meanings, to struggle oneself is the meaning of the word itself, and the other meaning is to fight in “holy war”.when you reference a source please make sure it is a true hadith or a true source. i can assure you your hadith is not sahi. for the foot note from bukhari.. i dont follow bukhari nor does the entire population of islam, its like saying mormons follow everything that christians follow ( bad analogy, but you get the point)

1. about the dress code….. iran’s dress code is totally different from afghanistans/saudi’s , woman only have to wear a covering, they dont have to put up with the whole burkha. the taliban are from saudi or pakistan, most dont even know farsi, they know arabic, pushtu, or urdu. i dont see your point.

2. it says it clear in those verses, unless your one of those who dont take the bible literally. i dont know where are women being beheaded or stoned? what analogies are you talking about? when did i make any?

3. would you consider a christian that rapes or kills as a real christian? if no, then i believe the same thing about a supposed muslim who would do the same, or jew for that matter. no islam does not call for killing as you say. there are extremists yes, but just because a group of people do something doesnt mean it represents the whole religion. if a christian or group of christians stole something from me, i wouldnt say all christians steal. there are good and bad followers of every religion out there.

4. the muslims controlled the holy land for a while, and people were entering it peacefully whether it be athiest, christians, jews, etc ( well until the crusades). yes people were mistreated during the crusades though…. salahadeen was a horrible leader that went into towns just to destroy everything including civilians. im not saying that muslims at the time were fully in the right, but just pointing out that they shouldnt be blamed for everything.

5/6 good question, but not even half of america knows the two translations, they just know holy war and bombs.

1. about the dress code….. iran’s dress code is totally different from afghanistans/saudi’s , woman only have to wear a covering, they dont have to put up with the whole burkha. the taliban are from saudi or pakistan, most dont even know farsi, they know arabic, pushtu, or urdu. i dont see your point.

IF you don’t see the point you don’t want to… The idea that I was speaking just about the burkha is silly – I wasn’t. I was referring to all the covering demanded whether in Pakistan, Afganistan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Why must they all be so covered? I don’t see your point about the languages spoken – in fact it could well emphasize my argument… That is to say that the commonality these practices share is in fact NOT cultural.

yes and i agree with you, it is silly. i think women should be clothed somewhat, but the burkha is ridiculous to me. like i said earlier, it was not law in afghanistan until the taliban came. many other stupid influences came from the taliban as well, such as women weren’t allowed to go to school when they ruled.

The rule exists, women must cover their hair, Just because common day christians do not follow it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AS FOR THE POPE:

You’ve been living in a box, or have not been watching the pope at all, because one of his strongest stances, during his papacy, was the healing of the wounds with Islam.

“The Vatican’s 1999 declaration, “Memory and Reconciliation,” subtitled “The Church and the Faults of the Past,” which followed the 1992 apology for the persecution of the 17th-century astronomer and physicist Galileo, was a profoundly important act of grappling with the dark episodes of church history as part of a process the Holy See called “historical purification.” In the litany of atrocities against Jews, Muslims, women, and ethnic groups, the Crusades were specifically mentioned. For the first time in church history, the Vatican, under John Paul II, apologized for what the Crusaders had done. Its impact was enormous, signifying a tectonic shift in Christian attitudes toward Islam. In guiding the church toward this repentance, Pope John Paul II allowed Muslims to re-connect with one of their own main theological figures-Jesus.”

So it is analagous to say that real Muslims – the majority – don’t like these practices so commonly found? Interesting. Can you link to some of the condemnations from reformers who are against these practices?

You think Just because 3 Muslim Countries make people wear Burkhas, that somehow 1.3 billion Muslims believe it?

Why don’t you read and respond to what I actually write? Heck, why not point out how the cleric I quoted is actually guilty of wrong thinking and link to some of the condemnations of his thought from reformers?

That’s called ignorance, Governments do what they like and manipulate religion how they like, they do not represent religion.

That is called wondering why these governments and cultures with Islam as a commonality so misunderstand Islam.

When was the last time a Protestant claimed that the Vatican had any leeway on their religion at all?

Help me to understand how this is analagous…

This is pure nonsense and “asimplesinner” is making futile points

What point am I making that is futile? What of addressing the cleric?

His points include:

1) Burkha’s are mandatory because they are enforced in some Muslim countries

Where did I write that? Where? This is called a straw man.

That somehow makes Iraq a lawful war, even though 80% of Americans are against it and it still hasn’t come to an end, even though WE elected a Democratic CONGRESS in 2006.

Where did I write THAT?

The fact is simple, whether you believe it or not: The burkha is a traditional garment.

Why does this cleric fall under the misunderstanding that unveiled women turn men into beasts? I am more interested in why he believes it. Why not share?

IN Iran and Saudi arabia and other places, they TRADITIONALLY have warn it, that doesn’t make it mandatory or even beneficial.

How did it come to be so closely associated? Where is all this misunderstanding of Islam coming from?

GOVERNMENTS DO NOT ( DO NOT, DO NOT, DO NOT) MAKE RELIGION, ARGUING THAT POINT IS LIKE TALKING TO A CHILD. YOU EITHER UNDERSTAND IT OR YOU DON’T.

Dealing with someone who fabricates arguments to oppose (again, straw man action) is like dealing with a child. Where is the condemnation by the “real” and “moderate” Islamists who are less convinced that the unveiled women will be turning men into beasts?

2) He argues Christianity does not mandate head coverings for women.

You don’t convincingly argue that it does. Citing the Pauline passage without exploration of what that entails is tenuous on your part. For 1.3B of us, 300M Orthodox, and the vast, vast majority of Protestant sects, I see no mandating of head coverings – not even based on that passage. Where do you see it and what is your rationale for interpreting the Bible like those in Islam interpret the Koran?

He agrees that the Bible Mandates it, but NO ONE FOLLOWS THE BIBLE.

Who are you actually discussing these things with, Phoenix? Who? You are attributing to me things I never said. NEVER. Where on earth did you get that? Where did I say that? I didn’t. You are now twisting.

IGNORING A RULE DOESN’T MEAN IT DOES NOT EXIST.

Agreed. Where did I do that?

The rule exists, women must cover their hair, Just because common day christians do not follow it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Or you don’t understand the passage at all.

You’ve been living in a box, (ahh, here we go, I live in a box, I am ignorant, it is like arguing with a child… subtle!) or have not been watching the pope at all, because one of his strongest stances, during his papacy, was the healing of the wounds with Islam.

“The Vatican’s 1999 declaration, “Memory and Reconciliation,” subtitled “The Church and the Faults of the Past,” which followed the 1992 apology for the persecution of the 17th-century astronomer and physicist Galileo, was a profoundly important act of grappling with the dark episodes of church history as part of a process the Holy See called “historical purification.” In the litany of atrocities against Jews, Muslims, women, and ethnic groups, the Crusades were specifically mentioned. For the first time in church history, the Vatican, under John Paul II, apologized for what the Crusaders had done. Its impact was enormous, signifying a tectonic shift in Christian attitudes toward Islam. In guiding the church toward this repentance, Pope John Paul II allowed Muslims to re-connect with one of their own main theological figures-Jesus.”

And? Given the Holy Father’s generous gestures towards Islam, what are we to gather from it?

Not only did he do that, but he also kissed the Quran, http://tinyurl.com/5fdujo , a picture that i linked to above but you easily ignored.

No one ignored it. What do you think it proves?

Christianity does not demonize Islam, Neither did John Paul II, Neither does Jesus and he would never sanction such gruesome comments against it.

When did you become fit to speak on behalf of Jesus? You want to cite the New Testament, how much of it have you read?

The question now remains, why do you?

Why do I what? Why do I print a quote about the opinion of a cleric who thinks that unveiled women turn men into beasts – a quote you seem to also agree is foolish…

You are clearly in the wrong when your own pope and prophet stand against you.

How do they (at least the pope!) stand against me in printing the quote of a cleric who says that unveiled women turn men into beasts?

1.3 billion people wait for an apology, Slander and Liable are illegal in all democratic countries.

They can keep waiting – waiting for an apology from the cleric who is a “misunderstander of Islam”. Actually, 3B men of the world can wait for an apology from him – we don’t turn into beasts when we see an unveiled woman.

Why should anyone be tolerant of Islam? Tolerant of what? Murder, mayhem, robbery dispossession, attacking Christians, it’s famous maltreatment of women, honor killings, miles and miles of hate rhetoric? Yep there’s plenty there to be tolerant of…
If you are deaf, dumb, blind and stupid…

In the 60’s I traveled a lot in Africa and the middle east and I did not see as many burqas as I see today in the streets of Europe. Saw hardly a burqa in Khartoum , Mogadishu, Aden, Djibouti or Cairo.
The ultra Islam only started when the oil price shot up in 1973, it has been, after oil, the biggest export from Saudi Arabia. In Nairobi, at the British airbase, they had major problems with the Somalis.
not the burqas but the V.D. some of the servicemen got from them.

Whatever you can say about the Crusades and the Inquisition, you will never find a New Testament verse commanding that Christians go out and kill people. Christ never commanded anyone to kill in His name. Christianity doesn’t have and never has had a doctrine mandating warfare against non-Christians. Not to mention that people from Christian cultures that perform terrorist acts against others are rightly recognized as the criminals they are, not celebrated as heroes as in Muslim cultures. Unlike the Koran, the Bible is a huge collection of documents written by different people at different times in different contexts, which allows for much greater interpretative freedom. The Koran, on the other hand, comes exclusively from one source: Muhammad.

The outrageous level of violence committed in the name of Islam is mind-boggling. While I do believe there are “moderate” Muslims, Islamic theology itself is not moderate. Muslims are “moderate” in spite of Islamic teachings, not because of them. This is a crucial and extremely important distinction. Islam is a totalitarian, fascist belief system that orders its adherents to conquer and subdue anyone who does not believe as they do. Islamic law, Sharia, governs every aspect of religious, political, legal and personal life, and, in essence, has much more in common with Nazism than with Christianity. While Christianity is a faith that can be, and has been, abused by individuals, Islam is an entire ideology with the goal of subjugating the world to itself.

It matters little if jihad is inner struggle or outer struggle it is all jihad, and it’s current manifestation is world wide physical jihad, in numerous places. Followed up by huge propaganda campaigns, such as is going on here. I suppose those two or three jihadists, that are the minute minority of extremists, just misunderstand the Quran, and you guys got it right…Haha, that’s a major joke. You are not fooling anyone…well maybe a few psychotic kufrs. Your biggest propaganda problem is that Kuffars can read and think for themselves. You guys may win a few battles along the way, but you won’t win the war. Allah is not willing…As far as Bukhari’s submission about jihad, I don’t care if it’s Shia or Sunni, it’s provisions are noted in the Quran. And it is a perfect description of jihad, and it was submitted by an authority with a lot more knowledge than those who disregard it…

Read the Qur’an. Read a biography of Mohammed written by a non-Muslim (Karen Armstrong does not count). Visit islam watch or jihad watch. Just the fact that Islam requires women to wear black cloth tents should tell you something. Free your mind and the rest will follow.

Becaz….Allah wrote a book…The Quran. In his book, he made it very clear what he wanted Muslims to do, how to behave, and who his (Allahs)enemies are. His main man on the planetary level was Mohammad, the perfect man and roll model, he (Mohammad) provided the examples. A good muslim is one who follows Allahs directions as he (Allah) states in his book. Muslims who do not want to do that, or try to alter that, are apostates. That’s why Mohammad said ‘anyone who changes their religion, kill him’. Altering Islam, is changing Islam…a death penalty. What muslim will stand up to Allah and say, ‘I did not like something you said in your book, so I will change it, or ignore it’? This is why you can’t find a truly moderate muslim. As soon as they get moderate, they are automatic apostates. Maybe their brothers don’t know, but Allah does and he takes a dim view. It’s best just to apostate all the way and get out of town…

Now where is your statement of condemnation about the hateful remarks???

“Women without the veil are a danger that the authorities underestimate,” said Hojatolislam Seyyed Ahmad Elmalhoda, a powerful cleric who leads the Friday prayers in Mashad, a site considered sacred for Shia Muslims as it houses the shrine of Imam Reza.

“This situation is very serious in that if men see these bad women, they will turn into beasts, and then the whole of society will have to pay the consequences.”

According to the Shia cleric, women who do not respect conservative Islamic dress rules are “sources of all that is bad in society.”

If you had bothered to look for condemnation you would have found it, the problem is you shut your eyes to it. That organization is headquartered in Washington and is a powerhouse for muslim political activity.

Again if you had bothered looking for it, you would have found it, the problem is you don’t actively look for condemnation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1.3 billion muslims are condemning the actions of a few, and are upset with their governments.

Just because your media doesn’t show it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Try watching Al Jazeera English, or the BBC, and get an international Viewpoint, maybe you’d become less biased.

Maybe i’m unwelcome now, and an open discussion isn’t what you wanted.
That’s fine, because in the end I only want to speak to people willing to listen.

Why waste my energy, and yours, if you seem to not want to take in anything I say?

Again I’m asking why my comments on the name “Theephoenix” are being discarded?

And if it’s because you don’t want an open discussion, I’m fine with going away.

Next time place a disclaimer on the site: “No opposing views shall be endorsed or expressed, and the vilification of Islam will remain, regardless of our Previous Pope’s Views or the Teachings of Jesus Christ, the uniter of humanity.”

If you had bothered to look for condemnation you would have found it, the problem is you shut your eyes to it. That organization is headquartered in Washington and is a powerhouse for muslim political activity.

Again if you had bothered looking for it, you would have found it, the problem is you don’t actively look for condemnation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1.3 billion muslims are condemning the actions of a few, and are upset with their governments.

Just because your media doesn’t show it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Try watching Al Jazeera English, or the BBC, and get an international Viewpoint, maybe you’d become less biased.

if your statement is so true about muslims killing non muslims because failure of conversions…. why is it that in muslim countries such as jordan, there is a numerous amount of christians that muslims have lived with peacefully for centuries. or in india where hindus, Buddhists, and muslims live together. Wouldnt the *evil* muslims have killed them off centuries ago because they supposedly kill non muslims. give some proof man.

it is actually more common for muslims and jews to be killed for their religion by christians. countries such as spain would kill, torture, or exile them from the country because the leaders of countries like this would want to follow the pope and his orders.

if your statement is so true about muslims killing non muslims because failure of conversions…. why is it that in muslim countries such as jordan, there is a numerous amount of christians that muslims have lived with peacefully for centuries. or in india where hindus, Buddhists, and muslims live together. Wouldnt the *evil* muslims have killed them off centuries ago because they supposedly kill non muslims. give some proof man.

So you posit that so long as Christians exist at all, it is a testament to benevolence?

it is actually more common for muslims and jews to be killed for their religion by christians. countries such as spain would kill, torture, or exile them from the country because the leaders of countries like this would want to follow the pope and his orders.

Going back to last week? or 5 centuries?

Where in Christian lands are Moslems currently being killed by Christians?

Do you wish to examine what was going on in the Islamic world when Spain was exiling Moores and Jews?

A month ago, the Iranian parliament voted in favour of a draft bill, entitled “Islamic Penal Code”, which would codify the death penalty for any male Iranian who leaves his Islamic faith.

Women would get life imprisonment. The majority in favour of the new law was overwhelming: 196 votes for, with just seven against. Imposing the death penalty for changing religion blatantly violates one of the most fundamental of all human rights.

The right to freedom of religion is enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and in the European Convention of Human Rights. It is even enshrined as Article 23 of Iran’s own constitution, which states that no one may be molested simply for his beliefs.

Any news from Spain for similar legislation or punishment for those Christians apostacizing from Holy Mother Church these days?

I don’t think that there is any provision in the new Iranian statue for changing one’s religion TO Islam… So I think the Chaldean and Assyrian and Evangelical Christians who opt to utter the shahadah will be safe… far safer than they are now. Strangely, Christian families in Iran don’t seem to experience honor killings when one of our own apostacizes to Islam.

This century, in Iraq, Iran, Indonesia and Pakistan, Christians have been forced to convert, pay tax or die. Including journalists who were forced to convert at gunpoint. Do you see the problem here with calling Islam a religion of peace?

Especially when Mohammed’s grandson and his baby son were murdered by another would-be leader?

Islam does what it does because Islamic hegemony consists of removing all obstacles to world dominating Islam. Look at Quran 8:39 and others.

‘Fight them until’…is not a call for inner meditation. It is a call for continuous warfare ‘until’ dar al-harb is destroyed, and all the filthy kufrs living in it, are either converted, forced into dhimmi slavery, or die.

Islam has been trying to accomplish this for 1400 years. In all that time, they have won a few, and lost a few, but have never gained world dominance.

In addition, I give Islam credit for having very interesting characters in their early history. Mohammad was interesting, so was Ali, Umar , Uthman, Abu Bakr,.
Aisha, and others
I especially like Umar and the woman Hind, who chewed on dead Hamza’s liver, now there’s a woman. They don’t make em like that any more, not even in Islam.

Umar was a brute, but a smart brute, and from what I read, I think Mohammad was afraid of Umar, because he gave Umar any thing he wanted, and said Allah sanctioned it. Umar did not want to kiss the black rock, but did so because Mohammad did.
I might do some real research on Umar and write an article about him…

Even at this late date, after years of encountering disingenuous, weaselly, slippery, tap-dancing Muslims — and thus having become fed up with attempting any kind of “dialogue” with any of them whatsoever — I sometimes find myself tempted to waste my precious time engaging in responses to Muslims like “SunfromtheWest”, particularly when they trot out bundles of specious claims that masquerade as a logical argument. Such as:

“jihad has 2 meanings, to struggle oneself is the meaning of the word itself, and the other meaning is to fight in “holy war”.”

Problem here is that it has the second meaning! There should be no “holy war” as a goal and motivation for 1.2 billion people existing in over 150 countries around the world, whose highest allegiance is to their trans-national Umma and to their constant, paranoid, hyper-sensitive sense that they must “defend” their religion against “enemies”. Muslims must give up this “other meaning” of jihad. Immediately. If they don’t give it up, the actions of too many of them around the world — escalating and metastasizing now as jihad is undergoing a global revival — will sooner or later provoke the non-Muslim West to take deadly and comprehensive action against them, and lots of collateral damage will be unavoidable — just as it was the last time we had to put down a dangerous megalomaniac geopolitical pathology, the Axis of German Nazism/Italian Fascism/Japanese Imperialism.

“when you reference a source please make sure it is a true hadith or a true source. i can assure you your hadith is not sahi.”

Here, “SunfromtheWest” makes a claim, but provides no evidence to substantiate his claim. Sun can “assure” us this hadith is not sahi, but merely “assuring” us is not sufficient. He has to provide evidence. In fact, Bukhari himself is “sahi”. That’s why his collection of ahadith is called “Sahih Bukhari”. Bukhari is in fact the most authoritative source of ahadith for Muslims. And the ahadaith are the center of the Sunnah, which is of equal importance for Sunni Muslims to the Qur’an.

“for the foot note from bukhari.. i dont follow bukhari nor does the entire population of islam”

85% of the world’s Muslims are Sunnis. Sunni Muslims follow the Sunnah, and one of the most important sources for the Sunnah is Bukhari’s collection of ahadith. Thus, this claim from “SunfromtheWest” is preposterous.

Then we have the more complex stupidity of people like TheeePhoenix, when he directs our attention to the Islamic Information Center for an example of good and moderate Muslims. A cursory examination of that site shows it to be riddled with disingenuous disinformation about Islam that cannot be merely the product of ignorance but must be calculated Taqiyya-and-Kitman.

To pick one example out of a turban, in their FAQ section, they write:

“What does Islam say about those who die who are not Muslims, but still posses good virtues, ie. Mother Teresa?

Islam is philosophically based on justice. Whoever does good, will be rewarded by God either in this life or in the next.”

Even a fleeting consultation with the Qur’an will expose this answer they give to be utter balderdash.

Example:

98:6. “Lo! those who disbelieve, among the People of the Scripture and the idolaters, will abide in fire of hell. They are the worst of created beings.”

What does “disbelieve” mean? It means to fail to believe in Islam — i.e., in Allah and in his Prophet Mohammed and all that they commanded. Thus, see Qur’an 2:62, 2:137, 5:69, and most especially 3:85:

“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers.”

Also, Jews and Christians are called disbelievers in multiple places in the Qur’an 9:30-32, 5:11-17, 5:72-73. In 98:6 The disbelievers (“kafaroo”) are described as the “worst of created beings”. In 9:29, Allah enjoins Muslims to kill (q-t-l) those who believe not in Allah, the Last Day, Mohammad, and Islam.

Mother Teresa was a fervent believer in the divinity of Jesus. That one belief of hers merits her to eternal Hell according to Islam — since joining “partners” to Allah (the sin of “Shirk”) is a “crime worse than murder”.

But the Islamic Information Center would never admit these things, because that would alienate too many unsuspecting Infidels who might be visiting their site.

Thus, Muslims like those who propagate disinformation at the Islamic Information Center are in fact exposing themselves — at least to the intelligent Infidel who takes the trouble to learn — as clever propagandists.

We Infidels who are fed up with this type of Muslim will no longer even entertain a Muslim unless he immediately satisfies a first condition: He or she must immediately admit that Islam is diseased — not superficially or peripherally, but at its core. Only with this admission can we even begin to contemplate the notion of a viable Islamic reform.

Following that admission, we will grant the Muslim a couple of minutes of our precious time to articulate for us what this “disease” consists of. If they say one wrong, disingenuous, sly thing during this articulation, we will have to slam the door in their face and stop the dialogue.

If the above sounds harsh, consider that in fact I am being excessively generous to followers of an ideology that has been brutally and ghoulishly and ferociously (but nowadays more often than not more stealthily) attacking the West for 1400 years.

Hesperado – why should i provide proof for something that is so blatant. look at the root word yourself. but if you want proof here is the first definition i found for it on google

Jihad: An Arabic word meaning “to struggle” or “to exhaust one’s effort.” The “effort” can mean preaching Islam and living virtuously in accordance with God’s commands. But it can also apply to actual fighting to defend Muslims. Even military jihad, however, is supposed to be fought with respect for the rules of war.

here is wiki’s definition

Jihad (Arabic: جهاد‎ IPA: [ʤɪhæːd]), an Islamic term, is a religious duty of Muslims. In Arabic, Jihad means “strive” or “struggle”. Jihad appears frequently in the Qur’an and common usage as the idiomatic expression “striving in the way of Allah (al-jihad fi sabil Allah)”.[1][2] A person engaged in jihad is called a mujahid, the plural is mujahideen.

A minority among the Sunni scholars sometimes refer to this duty as the sixth pillar of Islam, though it occupies no such official status.[3] In Twelver Shi’a Islam, however, Jihad is one of the 11 Practices of the Religion.

According to scholar John Esposito, Jihad requires Muslims to “struggle in the way of God” or “to struggle to improve one’s self and/or society.”[3][4] Jihad is directed against Satan’s inducements, aspects of one’s own self, or against a visible enemy. The four major categories of jihad that are recognized are Jihad against one’s own self (Jihad al-Nafs), Jihad of the tongue (Jihad al-lisan), Jihad of the hand (Jihad al-yad), and Jihad of the sword (Jihad as-sayf).[5] Islamic military jurisprudence focuses on regulating the conditions and practice of Jihad as-sayf, the only form of warfare permissible under Islamic law, and thus the term Jihad is usually used in fiqh manuals in reference to military combat.[

how is my claim of bukhari preposterous? i said not all muslims follow bukhari and im still right. and you think that 85% of muslims follow bukhari? just because the majority of sunnis do, does not mean that all of them do.

muslims do not believe that christians commit shirk either… although there is the trinity… christians will always argue that they believe in one god. is there any christian that has said that they are polytheist? i think not. Mormons on the other hand i believe treat them as separate entities while christians do not

Yes Jews are Christians are called disbelievers at times but they are also praised many times in the quran… here is one example…

3:75 “Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, “there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans).” but they tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it.”

the jews and christians are accused of changing the word of the bible, but in other verses in the koran, it states how there are a group of the people of the book who pray and ask forgiveness at dawn. They are not condemned people, i and other ( not all) muslims believe that christians and jews can get into heaven. im sure there are some jews and christians who may think musilms will go straight to hell, or some that believe that muslims have a chance at getting into heaven as well.

What “SunfromtheWest” obtusely fails to understand is that it doesn’t matter if a concept contains harmless or good aspects — What matters is if that concept *also* contains harmful aspects.

So even if “jihad” contains harmless and/or good aspects, that does not sufficiently counteract the bad aspects of “jihad” — particularly concerning the nature of those bad aspects (the call to do everything possible to advance the supremacist expansionism and unjust legalism of Islam — a call commanded to all Muslims by the Muslim God himself as well as by that most important and influential human in history for Muslims: Mohammed).

Then “SunfromtheWest” attempts the classic “Two-Step” maneuver of the tap-dance (a maneuver that Leftists also employ routinely): With his right hand he acknowledges the harmful aspect (“[jihad] can also apply to actual fighting to defend Muslims”), and with the left hand tries to nullify the banefulness of it — “to defend” and “supposed to be fought with respect for the rules of war”.

Of course, here “SunfromtheWest” ignores my articulation of this problem of the notion of “defense” which I provided in my previous post to which he was responding. A more thorough analysis is on my blog in an essay titled “Muslims must give up the right of religious ‘defense’ ” at

Notice, too, how “SunfromtheWest” claims that the physically violent aspect of jihad “is supposed to be fought with respect for the rules of war” — but he provides no evidence for this; and furthermore, does not specify whose rules are to be respected. Genghis Khan had “rules” for war too, but the modern world would not accept those rules because they are too regressive and barbaric for the progress of ethics.

Then “SunfromtheWest” trots out a Wikipedia definition, in which insult is added to injury by the invocation of that transparently tendentious apologist for Islam, Jose Esposito.

On top of that, “SunfromtheWest” engages in either plain negligence or obfuscatory tactics when in his last post he protests — “i said not all muslims follow bukhari and im still right” — while in his previous post he claimed that — “i dont follow bukhari nor does the entire population of islam”.

From “entire population of Islam”, he magically shifts to “not all Muslims”.

Perhaps soon enough we will be able to have him agree that in fact “not all” = “most”. Doubtlessly there might be some Sunnis who are lax about this or that aspect of the Sunnah. But the point is that the Sunnah is what makes a Sunni, and Sunnis are 85% of the world’s Muslims (do the math — 85% of 1.2 billion people), and the Sunnah is centrally dependant upon Bukhari.

“muslims do not believe that christians commit shirk either… although there is the trinity… christians will always argue that they believe in one god.”

All Christians say that a human being, Jesus, is God. That is blasphemy in Islam worthy of eternal damnation ( as well as earthly punishments of various kinds based on Islamic law).

“is there any christian that has said that they are polytheist? i think not.”

“SunfromtheWest” then cites a Koran verse in order to show that Disbelievers are “praised many times” — but the one he adduces is hardly “praise”!

3:75 “Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, “there is no call on us (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans).” but they tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it.”

Note the last phrase: “but they tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it.” Telling a lie against Allah is hardly a harmless thing in Islam. You can get killed for it.

The apparently positive tonality of certain verses in the Koran with respect to Jews and Christians is vitiated by the fact that the specific Jews and Christians are only regarded positively insofar as they believe and follow what essentially boils down to Islam — a Christian or Jew who follows everything Allah and Mohammed commanded would no longer be a Christian or Jew. And of course, another closely related way in which a Christian or Jew may ingratiate himself to Muslims is to becomea good Dhimmi, ever subservient to the sociopolitical dominance of Islam, which includes humiliating treatment of those Jews and Christians in a variety of ways (the Pact of Omar delineates many of them, while others can be garnered from the history of Islam in various places — example in India, where Muslim tax collectors would require their Hindu Dhimmis, as part of their obligatory humiliation ritual for the collection of the Jizya (cf. Qur’an 9:29), to open their mouths and receive the spit of the Muslim tax collector).

He alluded to the fact that somehow Muslims believe Mother Teresa is going to Hell just because she isn’t a muslim.

This is false.

To prove his point, he quoted lines from the Quran telling people that those who didn’t choose islam as their religion, were “losers, or going to hell”

Those lines you give are being taken out of context.

The Quran has something called “Tafseer” which basically means where the content lies. When it was given, to whom it was given, why it was given, in what city it was given, ALL questions that are answered in tafseer and you understand why those sentences were uttered.

Remember every sentence of the Quran was uttered in Public, at a place, by the Prophet.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

An example of taking things out of context:

Matthew 10:32-39

34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. 36 And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.

~~~~~~~~~

Do i think Jesus came to spread War?

OF COURSE NOT, Muslims and Christians would be up in arms over that kind of a comment.

But again, i’m taking this quote out of context, I didn’t know who it was told to, when it was given, and for what reasons.

~~~~~~~~~~~

Official stance of Islam:

Our official stance is that you don’t need to be a Muslim to go to heaven, ask any reputable scholar in Islam, and he will say the same.

As for the christian stance though, you all think Ghandi is going to hell, along with Malcom X and a million other amazing people.

So no Hesperado, Mother teresa is most likely not going to hell, there is no such thing as automatic tickets based on religion in Islam.

But in Christianity, Automatic tickets is all there is.

I could be the best person who ever lived, and If i’m not christian, i’m still going to hell.

Hesperado, choose your fights wisely next time, it’s you who is on the side of sending people to hell for no reason.

The poster “TheeePhoenix” disputes my presentation that Muslims believe that Unbelievers (and therefore Mother Teresa, since she believed that a human being, Jesus, was divine) are going to Hell.

His dispute is based on one point:

1) the passages in the Koran that state that Unbelievers are going to Hell are taken “out of context”. He claims that the “context” which would supposedly contradict my claim is located in the Tafasir (basically these are works of exegesis by Islamic scholars on the Koran).

However, “TheeePhoenix” merely asserts that this is so; he fails to actually prove that the Koran verses that damn Unvelievers to Hell are not to be taken by Muslims as indicative of a general condemnation by God of Unbelievers to Hell.

Then he proceeds to demonstrate the fallacy of taking a verse (he picks a Bible verse) out of context. This demonstration only proves the general point that taking a verse out of context can be fallacious; it does nothing to specifically prove that the Koran verses under discussion were, in fact, taken out of context such that the damning to Hell part is vitiated.

Following that, “TheeePhoenix” adduces an unsubstantiated “official stance” of Islam whereby “you don’t need to be a Muslim to go to heaven” — and only provides the advice for us to “ask any reputable scholar in Islam”.

Well, here is a most “reputable scholar” of Islam, one of the most authoritative writers of Tafsir, named Ibn Kathir, writing about the verse I adduced earlier, Koran 98:6 —

“Allah informs of what will happen to the wicked disbelievers among the People of the Scripture and the idolators who oppose the Allah’s divinely revealed Books and the Prophets whom He sent. He says that they will be in the fire of Hell on the Day of Judgement and they will abide therein forever. This means that they will remain in it and they will have no way out of it and they will not cease being in it.”

Obviously, anyone (such as Maria Teresa) who believes that Jesus is God and who worships him and who in addition believes that God is Trinity is opposing Allah and the Islamic theology of the “divinely revealed Books and the Prophets”.

In summary, “TheeePhoenix” provided absolutely nothing of relevant substance and evidence to refute my presentation on this matter.

I’m disappointed; I expect a little more song-and-dance and hat tricks from a Muslim.

“They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evil-doers there will be no helpers.

Surely, disbelievers are those who said: “Allah is the third of the three (in a Trinity).” But there is no ilah (god) (none who has the right to be worshipped) but One Ilah (God -Allah). And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.”

9:30 establishes that both Jews and Christians are Kuffar and commit the crime of Shirk:

“And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths. They imitate the saying of those who disbelieved of old. Allah (Himself) fighteth against them. How perverse are they!”

Let us now, as “TheeePhoenix” adivses us, take a look at the “context” of 5:72-73 — in the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir:

Verily, whosoever sets up partners with Allah…) in worship;

[فَقَدْ حَرَّمَ اللَّهُ عَلَيهِ الْجَنَّةَ وَمَأْوَاهُ النَّارُ]

(. ..then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode.) as He will send him to the Fire and forbid Paradise for him. Allah also said;

(And the dwellers of the Fire will call to the dwellers of Paradise; “Pour on us some water or anything that Allah has provide you with.” They will say: “Allah has forbidden both to the disbelievers.”) It is recorded in the Sahih that the Prophet had someone proclaim to the people,

«إِنَّ الْجَنَّةَ لَا يَدْخُلُهَا إِلَّا نَفْسٌ مُسْلِمَة»

(Only a Muslim soul shall enter Paradise.) In another narration,

«مُؤْمِنَة»

(Only a believing soul…) This is why Allah said that `Isa said to the Children of Israel,

(Verily, whosoever sets up partners with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him, and the Fire will be his abode. And there are no helpers for the wrongdoers.) There is no help from Allah, nor anyone who will support or protect them from the state they will be in. Allah’s statement,

[لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُواْ إِنَّ اللَّهَ ثَـلِثُ ثَلَـثَةٍ]

(Surely, they have disbelieved who say: “Allah is the third of three.”) Mujahid and several others said that this Ayah was revealed about the Christians in particular. As-Suddi and others said that this Ayah was revealed about taking `Isa and his mother as gods besides Allah, thus making Allah the third in a trinity. As-Suddi said, “This is similar to Allah’s statement towards the end of the Surah,

(And (remember) when Allah will say: “O `Isa, son of Maryam! Did you say unto men: `Worship me and my mother as two gods besides Allah’ He will say, “Glory be to You!”)[5:116]. Allah replied,

[وَمَا مِنْ إِلَـهٍ إِلاَّ إِلَـهٌ وَحِدٌ]

(But there is no god but One God.) meaning there are not many worthy of worship but there is only One God without partners, and He is the Lord of all creation and all that exists. Allah said next, while threatening and admonishing them,

[وَإِن لَّمْ يَنتَهُواْ عَمَّا يَقُولُونَ]

(And if they cease not from what they say, ) their lies and false claims,

[لَيَمَسَّنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُواْ مِنْهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ]

(verily, a painful torment will befall the disbelievers among them.) in the Hereafter, shackled and tormented. Allah said next,

(Will they not repent to Allah and ask His Forgiveness For Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.) This demonstrates Allah’s generosity, kindness and mercy for His creatures, even though they committed this grave sin and invented such a lie and false allegation. Despite all of this, Allah calls them to repent so that He will forgive them, for Allah forgives those who sincerely repent to Him.

Notice the clear delineation of damnation to Hell to those who practice Shirk and compromise the Oneness of Allah by ascribing “partners” to Allah — and notice Ibn Kathir’s “context” is all about Christians who believe Jesus is God and worship him. Mother Teresa believed Jesus is God and worshipped him and also preached that teaching in her daily life and ministry for years. There is no way in hell (pun intended) that any Muslim could possibly deny that according to Islam, Mother Teresa and all Christians who believe in Christian doctrine are going to Hell.

And yet the Muslim “TheeePhoenix” claims just that. Either he is astonishingly ignorant of his own Islam, or he is lying to us. There is no third alternative.

Thank you. I am not trying to be awkward; just interested, how this majority is established ? I have heard on radio a Moslem lady, univ. professor I believe, who claims that there is no authority between Quran and an individual. I took it that it is up to each individual to choose whether to interpret Quran on his own or rely on an authority, whatever the latter is, even the consensus of the majority.

“Btw the tafsir above, is in no way in depth or complete, it is a cursory overview of the text.”

It was not a “cursory overview”. What I provided was an excerpt from the tafsir. I did not include everything, just the parts pertinent to making my case. That’s what people usually do when they cite evidence from other documents — they provide excerpts. Whether Ibn Kathir notes the Meccan or Medinan provenance of the ayat he is discussing or not, was not relevant to the point I was making. All “Theephoenix” had to do was click on the link I provided and see for himself. Instead, he makes a blanket assertion about the source, without even having examined it himself.

The other remark “Theephoenix” makes that is worthy of derision, if not note:

“If you want, i’ll try and find tafsir online, but theres no guarentee it is even listed online, because most works of tafseer are copyrighted and take more than 10 years to make.”

(the above site has 3 different tafsir collections — Jalalayn, ibn Abbas, and al-Nuzul)

A quick search on Google revealed many others, including those of Usmani and Maudoodi.

2) Then “TheePhoenix” tries to argue that tafsirs don’t exist online because they are copyrighted. There are MILLIONS of copyrighted works about everything under the sun that exist online — either in limited form or in complete form, readable for free.

3) He also adduces the supposed fact that they are not online because they “take more than 10 years to make”. Huh? So what? There are whole 50-volume encyclopedias on-line that took 50 years to make.

P.S.: “TheePhoenix” revealed a dirty secret about the Koran by the way, when he insisted that tafsirs indicate whether a given verse is from Mecca or from Medina — this is so that the reader knows whether the verse is to be abrogated or not. The Koran verses from the Medina period are later in time, lasting all the way to Mohammed’s death, and they are also considerably more intolerant, hateful, violent and supremacist in tone and in prescriptions. It is part of Islamic legal tradition to follow the principle of “naskh”, which means basically that if two verses seem to contradict each other — if one verse sounds peaceful and tolerant toward Unbelievers, while a second verse sounds utterly intolerant of Unbelievers (or even calls for their subjugation or death) — then it becomes important to know which period it came from, the earlier Mecca period when Mohammed and his followers were too weak to be belligerent, or the later Medina period when Mohammed and his followers had sufficient strength to lord it over others and begin their military expansion. If the peaceful verse is Meccan, and the intolerant/violent verse is Medinan, then the apparent contradiction is resolved by choosing the latter over the former.

HESPERADO, sincerely, I do not understand your “P.S.” comment. Granted the earlier conciliatory and later aggressive verses, what that has to do with the “dirty secret”. What this secret is all about?

Merely from what you say, having never looked into this myself, it seems to me that the grouping into these categories enables a Moslem to adopt one or another, depending on whether they want to present the Islam as a peaceful religion when is suits them, or encourage its aggressiveness when they are on a sure ground. Is that what you mean by the “dirty secret”? The matter seems too straightforward to be considered secret. If, not (i.e. if you don’t mean that) what then? If yes, couldn’t it be – as an alternative explanation – merely a historical fact that some are early, others late, and that the division is meant to help them strike a balance between the two opposites in a search for a genuine meaning?

“it seems to me that the grouping into these categories enables a Moslem to adopt one or another, depending on whether they want to present the Islam as a peaceful religion when is suits them, or encourage its aggressiveness when they are on a sure ground.”

Yes that would be one reason — for use in propaganda.

But another use is more “in house” as it were, internal to Islamic “catechism” so to speak — simply to show, as part of the explication of the exegesis of the Koran which is the main point of the tafsir collections, whether any given verse is amenable to “naskh” (“abrogation”) or not. This is part of the basic exposition of the Koran the tafsir writer does, enabling the Muslims who use the tafsir (clerics and legal scholars) to note that piece of information about any given chapter or verse of the Koran as they study the tafsir. Since the harsher, more intolerant and violent chapters are Medinan which was later and which under the rule of “naskh” tend to override in authority the earlier Meccan chapters, this simple exposition is just a helpful marker for the clerics and legal scholars to keep in mind for their writings and sermons.

The phrase “dirty secret” is more related to the fact that when Muslims are confronted with this fact about “naskh” they tend to deny it, and when they can’t deny it exists, they then tend to try to deny it has any serious influence on Muslims.

So “TheePhoenix” mentioned blandly the importance of the Mecca/Medina difference, but he studiously failed to include WHY it is important. Of course, he wouldn’t want Infidels to know that the violent intolerant Koran (the Medinan chapters) supersede the seemingly more tolerant Koran (the Meccan chapters) — whenever intolerance and tolerance seem to contradict each other.

It could mean there are errors in the Koran, but the Muslims don’t see it this way.

“when we put a revelation in place of (another) revelation — and Allah knoweth best what He revealeth — they [the Unbelievers] say: Lo! thou art but inventing. Most of them know not” (16:101)

“Whatever verse We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?” 2:106

It’s basically a device to explain the difference between the Mecca verses and the Medina verses — the difference needs explaining because the Koran is supposed to be God’s eternal truth, and there are apparent contradictions as I pointed out earlier, in terms of tolerance/intolerance shown to Unbelievers.

Also, the early and later parts of the Koran (Mecca/Medina respectively) are not evident from just looking at a Koran, because the chapters are not chronological. There are 114 chapters of the Koran, yet chapter 9 was written last. It’s all mixed up chronologically. That’s why tafsirs point out whether a given chapter/verse is Mecca or Medina, to be helpful.

One person who has studied this issue has argued persuasively, however, that there is no real contradiction between Mecca and Medina — in Mecca the Mohammed and his small band of Muslims were not really tolerant, they were just biding their time until they could gain strength to begin their divinely mandated supremacist conquest of the world, bit by bit (sort of like the way Hitler acted in his early years before he started invading one country after another). So the apparent contradiction is resolved by the fact that the Mecca part just has the intolerance suppressed, while in the Medina part they can finally “come out of the closet” so to speak.

yes there are many tafsirs… but that doesn’t mean they are reliable. I can make my own tafsir if i want, but i dont have that kind of knowledge. If i were to ask any Joe schmo to emphasize on a certain verse, it could be right or wrong, but im probably not going to follow his word if i do not know his background and how knowledgeable he is.

also…

Since chapter nine is one of the more violent of the surahs. why is it called At-Tawba (Repentance)?
Yes the surah mentions punishment in the afterlife, but repeats many times of forgiveness as is the title of the surah.

can you give any more contradictions? and please dont go to anti islam websites that have horrible translations or just make up misconceptions.

I really do not see a decisive difference between two renderings. They say that the Arabic language is ambiguous, and there is a general agreement that Quran can’t be translated, only re-told.

But of the two English renderings I consulted, one has “Whatever message We abrogate or cause to be forgotten…”, another “Such of Our revelations as We abrogate or cause to be forgotten…”

The former is by Maulana Muhammad Ali, seventh ed. 1991. He was a great scholar of the Ahmadiyyah branch. It has a substantial commentary: 2821 foot-notes.

Another is by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall, an English convert, published in Jordan. He was granted a leave by His Exalted Highnes Nizam to translate the book No year of publication given. Text only, scanty foot-notes.

But the matter is really not important, because there is no evidence that Quran is a revealed book.